Insufficient Authority - Do not open this thread

[richlevy]

Insufficient Authority - You are not authorized to view this thread. Do not open this thread.

[richlevy]

If you made it here, then you certainly fit into the spirit of the Cellar.

I posted this thread to open up a discussion on rule-breaking and the 'right' to information. Breaking rules obviously has a long history in the world and in this country.

In general, with information there are three basic arguments for breaking rules on viewing restricted material.

The “me” argument is basically that the person feels that he or she is above the law in regards to that rule. This is more of a 1980's argument which promotes selfish behavior as beneficial to society.

The anti-establishment argument is based on Watergate and the Pentagon papers and makes the case that many secrets deserve to be revealed based on known secrets that were kept secret as an abuse of power and not for the public good. The is more of a 1960's argument in response to the more compliant attitudes of the earlier decades.

The 'information wants to be free' is one half of 1980's argument based on the assumption that information is so liquid that keeping it locked away will be difficult, so why try.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Information wants to be free" is an expression first recorded as pronounced by Stewart Brand at the first Hackers' Conference in 1984, in the following context:

"On the one hand information wants to be expensive, because it's so valuable. The right information in the right place just changes your life. On the other hand, information wants to be free, because the cost of getting it out is getting lower and lower all the time. So you have these two fighting against each other."[1]

In general, is there any knowledge that is so destructive to the human soul that an argument could be made that it should be forbidden?

So far, most arguments for restricting or forbidding data have to do with effects on others. Child pornography laws are intended to protect children from being coerced (no child can give consent) into sexual situations and most other secrets are to protect national interests, corporate interests, or the privacy of the subject.

There are obscenity laws which operate against specific types of information, but it's not clear if they exist to protect the viewer.

Putting aside all of these issues and just focusing on the reader/viewer/listener, is there any kind of information which is so damaging that it should ethically be banned from being shown to a competent adult?

[Ibby]

The only things that deserve to be banned/censored are Nirvana, Green Day, Mallpunk, and Emo.

Originally Posted by richlevy

Putting aside all of these issues and just focusing on the reader/viewer/listener, is there any kind of information which is so damaging that it should ethically be banned from being shown to a competent adult?

No. In fact, I would say any adult has the right to all information within the framework of the exceptions you noted above. I have a problem with the word "competent" because that means someone else may get to determine my "competency." The individual should decide on their own if they are competent or not. I remember being 8 years old and a very advanced reader for my age. The school librarian didn't want to let me check out certain books because she claimed I couldn't possibly understand them. I had to read aloud to her from one of the books to prove that I could read at that level.

Freedom of information is the backbone of a democracy, IMO. An informed people can make better decisions. Lately, too many Americans have been making decisions on the basis of misinformation and outright lies.

Information is power. I loved being a librarian because I felt that I was helping to empower people. When someone came up and asked me how to find information on some topic, not only would I find it for them, I'd show them how to use the resources for themselves next time around. We kept a complete collection of all the State and Federal Statutes in the reference area, and explained to people the basics on how to use them.

Secrecy is the tool of people who want to take your power away and empower themselves over you. Period.

[9th Engineer]

There is a place for classification in certain areas, I wouldn't say we should have as much of it as we do and certainly the less the government does the better, but not everyone has a right to all information. It is possible to 'own' information and it has the same laws concerning property use. Classification and censorship is akin to people installing locks to protect their property.

[Flint]

Other: I've seen plenty of reverse-psychology "don't post here" threads, but the phrase "Insufficient Authority" intrigued me.

[Beestie]

The absence of consequences.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

Classification and censorship is akin to people installing locks to protect their property.

Censorship has nothing to do with protecting property. The goverment is probably the only "owner" that would censor information they produced unless forced to do so.

Do you believe in censorship to 'protect' the person examining content? Is there anything too disturbing for the avergage adult to handle?

Originally Posted by richlevy

Censorship has nothing to do with protecting property. The goverment is probably the only "owner" that would censor information they produced unless forced to do so.

Do you believe in censorship to 'protect' the person examining content? Is there anything too disturbing for the avergage adult to handle?

Agree that censorship cannot be compared to protecting property. Keeping certain information classified to protect a nation from its enemies is about as close as it gets.

I think its up to the "average adult" to decide for themselves what is too disturbing. For example, if I am reading a book, and the author starts to describe in graphic details one of the characters being tortured and goes on for page after gory page, I skip that part of the book or stop reading it completely. Others may have stronger stomachs than I, and read through such descriptions unperturbed. I don't have the right to tell anyone else that they can't read that book because it upset ME. And you don't have the right to prohibit my access to information that may be upsetting to YOU.

[9th Engineer]

This isn't about whether or not you have the stomach for the information, it's about whether or not you have a right to know whatever you want to. With the government, you pretty well do exept for reasonable cases of national interest. Within the private sector, you don't unless there's good evidence there's a crime involved.

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

This isn't about whether or not you have the stomach for the information, it's about whether or not you have a right to know whatever you want to. With the government, you pretty well do exept for reasonable cases of national interest. Within the private sector, you don't unless there's good evidence there's a crime involved.

Well, Rich specifically asked "Is there anything too disturbing for the average adult to handle?"

Yes, there is such a thing as proprietary information, and companies do have the right to that. I guess Rich will have to clarify further just what exactly it is he's asking.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by marichiko

Well, Rich specifically asked "Is there anything too disturbing for the average adult to handle?"

Yes, there is such a thing as proprietary information, and companies do have the right to that. I guess Rich will have to clarify further just what exactly it is he's asking.

I meant that outside of the damage that the information would do to others, (the nation, children, owners), is there anything that should be kept from someone to protect them from being too disturbed or disillusioned by it? Should we censor to protect the relative innocence of adults by not allowing them to see graphic sex or mutilation which goes beyond some extreme point? Should we censor to protect them from information which would dissuade them from being good citizens? Is there any information which could harm the average person just by viewing or hearing it and should they always have the choice to see it?

There was some SF story on one of the shows like Outer Limits or Twilight Zone about someone who comes back from (Tibet?) with a phrase that drives people insane upon hearing it. It begins to spread like a virus being passed from person to person.

Is there anything that really exists that could seriously damage the average persons psyche, and should anyone have the right to censor it?

We see horrible pictures on the Internet all of the time dealing with war, starvation, and disease. Is there anything too graphic for adult viewing?

Well, we can't make the evils in this world go away by turning our backs to disturbing things and chanting, "That is not really happening." I agree that some pictures/information are extremely disturbing. Some movies or TV programs will warn you beforehand, "Viewer discretion advised." The thing is, how can you make positive steps toward righting these wrongs if you don't know about them? Perhaps, the MORE upsetting they are, the more you should know. As far as citizens becoming demoralized by news about what the government is up to, I think everybody should have the right to that information, too. Sure, it will turn some people apathetic, but other people will become determined to try to make things better.

From time to time you hear of people being inspired to commit crimes after watching some violent film, but I can't help but suspect that someone that unstable in the first place would have eventually committed the crime, anyway.

I could probably make the argument that the networks shouldn't have been showing those scenes from 9/11 when it happened. I cried watching the news coverage, and everyone in the US was pretty shocked and upset. If 9/11 had been reported in less detail, would Americans stil have supported Bush in his stupid war? Would lying by omission have been a good thing? I think not. The American people get lied to enough as it is.

[DucksNuts]

I never do what I'm told, couldnt see the point of starting now

[lumberjim]

goatse, and tub girl